Opinion of Oliver Cromwell

[tpfkaw]

Managed to be even more deplorable than the Stuart dynasty.

Explain, in your own words, what exactly was so particularly "deplorable" about the Stuart dynasty. If your answer includes the words or phrases "tyranny," "they believed in the divine right of kings," "they believed in absolute monarchy," or "they tried to usurp the powers of Parliament," I will, as your 10th-grade/5th-form history teacher, give you a check-plus and a gold star sticker.

[tpfkaw]

The claim that the Stuarts were instituting "tyranny" by attempting to allow a limited measure of religious freedom is something of a 17th-century mirror of the modern argument that allowing same-sex marriage is "tyranny." Complete with the role of "activist judges" replaced by "absolute monarchs."

[tpfkaw]

The claim that the Stuarts were instituting "tyranny" by attempting to allow a limited measure of religious freedom is something of a 17th-century mirror of the modern argument that allowing same-sex marriage is "tyranny." Complete with the role of "activist judges" replaced by "absolute monarchs."

Attempting to impose the Book of Common Prayer on Scotland was a "limited measure of religious freedom?" 

Yes, because unlike the Dissenters the Anglicans were not (or at least not nearly as much) in favor of running the country as a hellish theocracy where any deviationist religious views, or anything fun for that matter, was met by being tortured to death, as evidenced by their views on such matters as "we don't like your book, so let's go kill 300,000 people." If the Dissenters had their way we wouldn't have had Shakespeare.

[tpfkaw]

The claim that the Stuarts were instituting "tyranny" by attempting to allow a limited measure of religious freedom is something of a 17th-century mirror of the modern argument that allowing same-sex marriage is "tyranny." Complete with the role of "activist judges" replaced by "absolute monarchs."

Attempting to impose the Book of Common Prayer on Scotland was a "limited measure of religious freedom?" 

Yes, because unlike the Dissenters the Anglicans were not (or at least not nearly as much) in favor of running the country as a hellish theocracy where any deviationist religious views, or anything fun for that matter, was met by being tortured to death, as evidenced by their views on such matters as "we don't like your book, so let's go kill 300,000 people." If the Dissenters had their way we wouldn't have had Shakespeare.

I'm seriously drawing a blank at how imposing episcopacy and Anglican prayers on a deeply Calvinist Presbyterian Scotland to which those things were deeply hateful is an act of religious toleration and liberty.  I fail to see how William Laud's scheme to impose the Church of England upon a Scotland that was not at all ready to receive it, to the point of having Charles invade his own kingdom of Scotland at gunpoint to enforce this situation, has anything to do with toleration.

"All churches that receive government funding have to share certain doctrinal similarities with our denomination, although they don't necessarily have to be part of our denomination per se. Government funding for churches comes from a tithe, which everyone has to pay, even if they don't belong to a government-funded church. Nobody can hold public office who doesn't belong to a government-funded church. If you disagree with this state of affairs, bummer."

"Anyone who deviates in even the slightest way from our Taliban-esque sect will be tortured to death. No drinking, no music, no sex, no theatre, no colorful clothing, no luxuries, no non-work or religion-related activities whatsoever. If you disagree with this state of affairs, you'll be tortured to death."

Which of these seems to you to be closer to a state of religious freedom?

[tpfkaw]

It's a false choice, given that Charles I was actively moving away from the de facto tolerance of Elizabeth I's reign and even his father's in attempting a more uniform and less varied church and in trying to extend that church's reach to Scotland, where it had never held sway before.  I don't see how you can interpret the monarchy's moves in the 1630s as anything other than a move against religious tolerance and diversity of tolerated opinion within the three kingdoms.

EDIT: You do remember that Charles called Parliament into session in order to vote him the money he needed to forcibly convert Scotland at gunpoint, right?

EDIT 2: I really don't get how anyone could look at the career of Charles I and go "Here's a friend of religious diversity."  Right from the beginning he was plotting with Bishop Laud to harmonize every Anglican Church and crush the regional diversity within it as an institution and to extend its hegemony north of the border into Scotland where it had never held sway before.  That's, like, the opposite of tolerance of religious diversity.

Fostering religious "diversity" and religious freedom are not the same thing. If the United States were to, starting tomorrow, mandate that Protestants have to pay double payroll taxes, while practicing Muslims and Hindus are exempted from paying payroll taxes, there will no doubt be an increase in religious diversity, but there will not be an increase in religious freedom.

When the high-church Anglicans were in charge, they were willing to allow the Catholics and Dissenters to live, more or less, in peace, although they created certain legal privileges for their own religion.

When the Dissenters were in charge, they made everyone convert or die, and forced everyone to follow their own, numerous and onerous, religious strictures.

Nobody was proposing a modern conception of religious freedom, although the high-church Anglicans came closer than anyone else in the world at the time, and the Dissenters were further away than almost anyone else in the world.

Anything that strengthened the high-church Anglicans and weakened the Dissenters brought England/Scotland closer to a state of religious freedom. Even if it made the kingdoms more uniformly Anglican, and therefore less religiously diverse, it still increased the level of religious freedom, because hostility to religious freedom was the central tenet of the Dissenter religious/political/ideological worldview.

The Dissenters had absolutely no right to complain about a lack of religious freedom, since they allowed no religious freedom to others themselves, and because the Catholics, who stayed loyal, were treated far worse than the Dissenters ever were by Charles I, even at his most "Papist."

[tpfkaw]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are Irish right?

If so, why the finks are you defending the idea of British monarchy?

J'ai du sang français ; je n'ai pas beaucoup de sang irlandais. Qui pensez-vous financé les révoltes jacobites?

Compared to the literally genocidal alternative, the Stuarts weren't anywhere remotely as bad for Ireland; that's why the Irish were on their side to (and after) the end. Most all of the truly nasty treatment of Ireland (as in being murderous and oppressive for the sake of being murderous and oppressive) can be attributed to the Puritans/Dissenters/Presbyterians, or their influence.